Partly allowed

S.Kumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Dec 2016WP/43588/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner to submit an undertaking to vacate the land and hand over possession within a specific time frame (three days). If complied with, the authorities would consider the submission and dispose of the eviction notice accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to file an undertaking to vacate and hand over possession within three days.

S.Kumar Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.No.43588 of 2016

¶8

S.Kumar .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Irrigation Division,
Vedoor Dam,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District -6065 652.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District. .. Respondents
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the second respondent dated
22.09.2016 issued under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act, 1905 and quash the same and consequently issue
a mandamus directing 2 nd and 3 rd respondents not to in any manner
interfere with the peaceful possession of the properties
belonging to the petitioner measuring 7 acres situated in
S.No.218/2 in Padirapuliyur village, Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District other than by invoking the due process oflaw
for the purpose of eviction.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
Spl. G.P. for R1 to R3

¶9

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, it emerges that the petitioner has no right over the land, in respect of which notice had been issued in the form of Form-III under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Rule, 2007. The only prayer made is that since the petitioner is cultivating the crops, he may be given time to harvest the crop and he will undertake to handover the vacant peaceful possession after the same (paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition).

¶14

We are, of the view that the petitioner may set out the specific time period, within which he would vacate and hand over the vacant possession and file an undertaking with the concerned authorities and if he does so within three days, the authorities will consider the same.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Irrigation Division,
Vedoor Dam,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District -6065 652.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District.
+1 cc to M/s.S.baskaran,advocate,sr.73841
+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.73992
mv(co)
krd 27/12 W.P.No.43588 of 2016

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Kumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federation of South Indian Vs Union of India

M/S R.K.v.Studioss (P) Ltd. Vs M/S Vijaya Medical and

M.Kalidoss, Vs The District Collector

L.Noelraj Vs The Returning Officer/

A.Jaivel Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Ranganayaki Vs The Commissioner